tv Americas Newsroom FOX News June 30, 2014 6:00am-8:01am PDT
>> last hour we helped send off this huge american flag back to afghanistan. it will be the first thing injured soldiers see when they enter the hospital there. highest court in the land. we are waiting for two major supreme court the battle over religious freedom and obamacare's controversy contraception mandate. i am martha maccallum. >> and i will eric sean in for bill hemmer this morning. this decision is the most closely watched marking the second time obamacare has gone before the justices >> it could all come down to chief justice john robert who could be the swing vote. which way will the drama play
out? byron work is live. what do you expect? >> reporter: this is a huge case for abortion but it isn't a threat to obamacare. the mandates and exchanges and subsidies will remain intact. what it talks about is whether the government can force a for-profit institution, not a religious institution or church, but a for-profit business that provides service, some type of contraception that violates the owner's religious beliefs >> 20 different forms of contraception are covered and they object to four of them and they believe they can cause abortion. so once the conception has taken
place in their mind it would turn that around and that is why they are so strongly opposed to these four different kind. are there larger ramifications if this goes hobby lobby's way? >> reporter: absolutely. hobby lobby doesn't object to providing 16 different fda contraceptions if is just the four they object to. but if the case is interrupted in a different way, people are worried say two employees, same sex decided to get married, would the company recognize that or say it violated its religious beliefs? on the other hand, if hobby lobby loses, these companies
worry the government could force them to do things which they believe is protected under the religious restoration act. >> one question about john roberts. conservatives were not happy with the decision he made on obamacare that could have turned it around and made it unconstitutional. that was a big surprise. do you expect surprises today? >> reporter: his entire tenure has been an effort to find common ground and agreement and doing that by narrowing the scope of the decisions. so is there a way to narrow and side with hobby lobby? we thought in the oral arguments in march some of the justice were on the hobby lobby side and
siding with it but knanot make a big principle. >> we will see. that is what we will find out in a couple hours. martha, how will the justice rule on the obamacare contraception mandate and what does it mean for the future of the law? we could find out in over an hour. the supreme court starting at 10 a.m. in washington, d.c. and the big decision could be coming down any moment after that and as soon as it is in your hands we will break it down with instant reaction and analysis. for the civil war in syria and the violence in iraq continuing and raising more concerns as home. the white house is considering rather to ramp up airport security here and abroad as we are learning of a jew -- new --
generation of explosives. doug mckelly in washington has more. >> reporter: there are reports that the obamacare administration is asking oversea networks to increase airport security in light of terrorist threat that include a new generation of hard to detect bombs that could be smuggled on via overseas airports. they could evade detection by most u.s. airport procedures. they might be the problem of yemen terrorist. one congressman expressed concerns over the security at international airports. >> it is very important to do, i cannot go into details, but a number ofon't have the types of security and we are saying anyone that will be
having someone that can fly to the u.s., they have to increase the security. >> reporter: this comes months after the warning of people trying to smuggle bombs on planes. they could include an increase in random security screening, targeting travelers and changes in the lines and changes to airport security in the u.s. as well is being discussed. >> we have to take off our belts and shoes and other measures might be taken. the only suspect that has been arrested in the benghazi attack plead not guilty. ahmed abu khattallah made his first appearance in court and he is charged with one count of
supporting a terrorist group but more charges could be involving. catherine heritage is live in washington. you were inside the courtroom. tell us what happened? >> reporter: i was sitting less than 25 feet from the suspect. he appeared days first entering the court, but he became laceer like once the judge started speaking and his demeanor shipped from daze, focused and then depressed. we are learning more about the interrogation on the uss new york. he was compliant but not forthcoming. the quality of the intelligence gathered was debated. >> you can imagine he wasn't pushing back but he was likely not providing -- he could give some details of some things but not to the point where an fbi agent would say bingo, this is
something that would turn into actionable intelligence. >> reporter: and once read his righted he elected to make the court appearance with his public defender. >> what are we learning about the case against him at this point? >> reporter: the republican head of the house homeland committee weighed in saying there a dozen suspects still free with charges against them and he wasn't arrested quickly because the justice department was building a criminal case against him. this case is also unprecedented in terms of evidence and witness. >> the crime scene is in another country so that is unusual and that is not a place where the fbi can easily connect evidence.
>> reporter: he has a series of hearing during the week and the u.s. officials are promising more charges. his alleged role isn't totally said but there is evidence he is part of the cia annex as well. in the wake of the continuing and disturbing va scandal, the president is going to announce a new secretary who is robert mcdonald. the retired ceo of a company. he is a west point graduate and the move coming on the heels of the scandal. he would be replacing slone
gibson who took over for eric shinseki. oscar pistorius is back in court as the blade runner is getting underway after he was order to undergo a mental evaluatio evaluation. the report has found he wasn't mentally ill when he shot and killed his girlfriend reeva steenkamp last year. if found guilty of pre-meditated murdered he faces a minimum of 25 years behind bars. it is decision day at the supreme court and about 50 minutes until we find out two hist hist historic decisions that could be coming down. we told you about the hobby lobby case, but another one is should non-union workers be forced to pay union dues?
and the fight over lois lerner's missing e-mails reaching another level. her attorney battled it over out the weekend and we will show you what happened. >> there is a scare in the air. how would you like to be on the plane and have the emergency shoot deploy when you are up 35,000 feet? it happened. we will tell you how it ended. >> you saw faces and a big bang and hiss and they had a panic look.
well, this isn't supposed to happen when eating peanuts and reading magazines. an emergency ploy deployed in the flight and there was no emergency. it happened outside the plane. the plane dropped 11,000 feet in 12 second and lost cabin pressure. the passenger described the chaos. >> we all turned around and the whole back cabinet part of the plane where they sat was full of the shoot. the first thing that went through my mind is the shoot opened and it probably popped out the door which meant we
would lose pressure immediately. but luckily that didn't happen. it just inflated inside. >> they were in route from chicago to southern california. they did make an emergency landing. all crew members and everyone on board save and united is investigating. new fallout into the irs scandal. lois lerner's attorney and darryl issa squaring off over the weekend over the thousands of missing e-mails. her lawyer challenging claims that lerner lied about a crash and chairman issa isn't buying it. >> it has been shown by e-mails -- attorney trying to get his client off the hook after flubbing the taking of the fifth will say and do a lot of
things. but we know the person said the irs failed to properly keep documents. >> steve hays is here. good to have you. >> good morning. >> william taylor the third is his lawyers and he was on cnn over the weekend. here is what he said: >> there was no pretense this would be a fair process. from the beginning the republican majority has screamed without any evidence about things that she did and made it clear that -- >> even if it isn't clear. >> the only purpose was to vilify her. >> littered in his statement is things that raise questions >> he is her lawyer and his job
is to defend her and make her look good in court or before congress or in this case the court of public opinion. it is clear that lois lerner has done things that question her behavior and willingness to tell the truth. most especially when see planted the question in the audience that got this started. this is what you would expect to hear from her lawyer who has had clashed with darrell issa going back months. >> the lawyer tries to portray her as someone who was very concerned about the fact the e-mails were missing and they went so far to call the it guys in. doesn't sound like they went further than that to reclaim them. if that were the case, why wouldn't she take the opportunity before congress to say this is my side of the
story. the computer crash and i didn't know i was going to hold on to them under the law which is a stretch but she could have said that. >> i think her actions belie her words. she seems to have been so concerned but yet they didn't do much and the hard drives were discarded. if you think this information is recoverable and you want to keep the information, there is a number of steps you can do to do that. it appears she did very few other than alert the it guys and he said call a second it expert. if you want to retrieve this information, calling a second it expert seems to be not the best. >> low on the list. and it seems there is no acknowledgment from the lawyer or lois lerner that she is a public employee and there are rules for public employees that
you must print out your e-mails, you have to keep them. it almost seems like they will like they are working for a private company. >> his job was to portray her as a victim but the lead archive person said laws were broken and they didn't keep the information. he continues to say it is a witch hunt and republicans treating her unfair. but why not call in a third party if he thought that and his client is truly innocent she would be exonerated? >> that is a great point. he should be among them calling for a special prosecutor if he believes she was wronged in that way. we will, steve.
so far, nowhere with the department of justice on this. a lot of yelling and not a lot of action. the u.s. is answering an urgent sos from iraq shooting up a speedment of hell fire missiles to help baghdad fight back. will it be enough? >> minnesota under water and people trying to cope the best they can. >> it was above my knees when i walked home from work. >> my wife and our son haven't been able to get to our house for a week now. for a week now. ual credit report... like, the one the bank sees? [ male voice ] sheesh, i feel like i'm being interrogated over here. [ male voice ] she's onto us. dump her. [ pay phone rings ] hello? oh, man. that never gets old. no, it does not. [ female announcer ] not all credit report sites are equal. experian.com members get personalized help
in a couple hours and turned streets into rivers. drivers were trapped in their cars. but minnesota seems to be getting the brunt and the worst flooding the state has seen in 30 years. this is pryr lake here. people said they are feeling hopeless. >> it is like a slow, creepy spider coming at you and you are tied down and you cannot do a thing. it is coming to get you and there is nothing you can do. >> the city is moving the 4th of july fireworks celebration to a different location. that sounds like a good idea. in iraq, the government military forces are fighting back against the sunni terrorist. some of the u.s. is rushing hell fire missiles to replenish the
arsenal. the new supply only last three days and cannot come soon enough. the battle is underway and carries a symbolic meaning for both sides as the town is the place where saddam hussein was there. our guest is here and what happens after the missiles run out and those three days? jack keane? >> 75 is better than nothing but they need hundreds of missiles to make a different. they are so frustrated with our foreign military sales. they have purchased aircraft, fighter jets, f-16 and other weapons and ammunition and it
has been held up in trying to there in a timely manner. us providing the equipment they need has been shameless. >> and those apache f-16s were on hold because we were fearful that maliki could use them against opponents. should we release them >> they could use the equipment and they have gone to the russians to get fighter aircraft and additional attack helicopters and ammunition and some of that is rolling in. defending baghdad, conducting successful counter defenses to retake the territory that is lost, that is going to be a challenge. >> talking about the military
hardware, not only the russians, but the iranians have two flights a day pouring in military equipment. do you think this will be enough to turn the tide? >> i think it will be tough. what they'll need to help the ground movement is air support on a continuous bases. we are flying flights to determine where the enemy is and watt the targets there. that is going to be helpful. and then we need air support and a ground campaign working together and that is usually a proven success story. the things we don't know and the advisors are coming together is what the real state of the iraq army. do they have the ability to have successful ground operations
against isis? they are discovering that selves. >> they say it could take six more months to finish this up at the least if that is even possible. two americans detained in north korea now set to go on trial. the charges they are facing and the harsh penalty that could be in their future >> and new questions about the president's action and whether he is overstepping his power potentially. chris wallace asking is he implementing the law or rewriting it? >> and the president simply saying congress, if you are not doing your job of passing the laws -- >> the constitution -- >> let me finish. >> it doesn't say if is poplar
fox news alert on another developing story this morning. the two americans who are now facing trial in north korea. jeffrey foul, 56-year-old, is from ohio and matthew miller entered separately as terrorist but were detained and accused by the authorities of carrying out what they call hostile acts.
greg is live in london with more. how are the men doing and what are the potential charges? >> the charges are vague. they are being taken seriously by the university. the 56-year-old is a street worker in ohio and was visiting part of a tour group, interested in experiencing different cultures. there was one report he left a bible in his hotel room and that is banned in north korea but his family said he wasn't spreading word. matthew miller, 24-year-old, tore up his tourist visa along entering demanding asylum. both were part of a tourist group and they are saying americans shouldn't be part of
that. still being held by authorities, 44-year-old kenneth by was convicted for vague hostile acts and he is in the middle of 15 years of hard labor despite numerous efforts to get him free. this is just a way for the new leader of north korea to stay in the news and to be taunting the united states who is enemy number one. he has been doing that in other ways, too. presiding over the launching of short-range missles and strange peace officers to stop military activity as long as the united states and south korea stop their activity. no trial is set yet and we are waiting from the state department for words in the next hours. >> another reminder of the
dangers of that dictatorship. over the weekend, demanding answers from the president's use of executive action. here is the exchange. >> what is his legal authority to take the action without going to congress? >> the president has the authority to implement the law. if there is a law saying we will pay a federal contractor money, the president can say you cannot gouge your workers because you are getting taxpayer money to do the work so the president says at least pay them the federal minimum wage. >> is he impmenting the law or rewriting it? >> let's take all of things he did on obamacare. congress wrote a law, what gives him the legal authority to rewrite in-law? >> because as the executive you have the authority and
obligation to make sure laws work and they act responsibility. if you see a green light, it doesn't mean you cross the street. >> jessica and katie are here and welcome both of you. good to have you both here. >> morning. >> you look at the question and at the heart of this is the congressman is arguing that because he thinks they were poplar changes that that makes them okay. >> well, they are actually what is called by the supreme court benevolent suspensions. so there is difficulty in bringing this sort of lawsuit because we have cases down from 1997 from the supreme court saying there has to be a legal standing for the cases to be brought and that if there are things such as benevolent
suspensions in terms of executive order it doesn't rise to the level with a lawsuit is warranted and that is what is happening here. talk about a fribilous -- frivolous -- lawsuit. unfortunately i think that is what we are seeing. >> but isn't it congress's responsibility once they see the power and the responsibility given to them in the constitution, is it incumbant not to act? >> we have balances of power -- >> right. that is the question. >> but in terms of the way congress is able to do that. they do it by enacting the law and getting things done in the house of representatives. >> they feel the president changed the law. does that mean they should act? go ahead, katie.
>> it is incumbant among them to act. it isn't the president's right to change the law. president obama campaigned on this and said he wanted to work with congress but we have seen anything but that. shortly after boehner announced the lawsuit, president obama tweeted out he is going to do what we wants. the house passed dozens of legislation and harry reid is the one that refuses to bring them up. this isn't just about republicans stone walling the president but law professor john turly said he was done this repeatedly. he has stepped over this bound
on a lot of issues throughout the federal government. >> imagine, jessica, if the shoe were on the other foot. and the republican president saw legislation that changed a sixth of the economy and changed it dozens of times. wouldn't you want democrats to protest that and make sure he d d did not overstep his bounds? >> it is about implementation and that is within the bounds of what the president could do. >> that is what they are trying to determine. so i don't know how it is frivolous. >> because of the way -- >> go ahead. >> hold on.
jessica respond. >> in order to bring a case, you have to have an injury and show there is a specific injury and that you have the standing to bring it. >> katie? >> i don't think we have time in this segment to get into the injuries that obamacare has caused the american people and the economy. he is not enforcing his own piece of legislation. he has changed it without congress. republicans wanted to delay the employer mandate and now it is poplar so the president is doing it by himself. it goes beyond executive power and goes into the idea of what president obama's standard for himself was and that was working for congress which he has done the opposite of. >> it seems like the president feels he was within the law he should not be at all concerned about this lawsuit.
jessica and katie thank you very much. and we have a fox news alert for you now. it is decision day at the united states supreme court court and there is going to be two huge rulings that could come down in 19 minutes from now and both could have wide ranging implications. >> a day of sun at sea world turns into dozens of people stuck on a ride for hours with hundreds of feet in the air for hours. >> i am waiting for my kid to get off and i am thinking something better happen quick or i am climbing up there to get him. him. ♪ some come here to build something stronger. others come to build something faster... something safer...
my doctor wanted me to get one of those emergency pendants. the ones that let you call for help. and i said, "that's not for me! that's for some old person." but we finally talked my mom into calling adt. then one day i slipped and broke my hip. the pain was terrible, and i couldn't get to the phone. i needed an ambulance, so i pushed the button. it's okay, mrs. anderson, the paramedics are on their way. it was so good to hear adt at the other end. adt home health security services. with one touch of a button, you can summon help from anywhere in your home and talk with a trained professional who can call for emergency assistance and even stay on the line until help arrives. 1 out of every 3 people over 65 will fall this year. adt helps you maintain your independence,
things got a little undercomfortable at seaworld with 40 plus people trapped on the top of the sky tower ride when the power went out. they were stuck 200 feet in the air for four hours up there. they finally worked out the problem and got them down. >> i know you want to be them. well it maybe considered by many to be a nightmare scenario. al qaeda related group isis is now declaring the creation of an
islamic state after controlling a large swath of syria and iraq. kt mcfarland is here now. you know, they are declared a caliphate, which is an islamic empire ruled by their laws and that has been their goal. >> this has been going on for 2500 years. between persia and the persian empire. it is the same fight and tribes that have been fighting for over,000 -- 2,000 years -- and i think we can expect the fighting to continue. >> can the government of baghdad and maliki's forces to defeat
them? >> no. they are doing whatever iran is telling them to do and their own military folded like a cheap suit the moment they were confronted by the guys that showed up and scared them. you have the iraq government with iran and syria and on the other hand you have al qaeda and it is isis, and in fact al qaeda thought isis, was too badly behaved. >> and iran is backing maliki. >> sure. they don't want to lose the region. they see al qaeda is establishing this caliphate and they don't want that to happen. they want to be the top power in the region and that is why they are fighting it out. that is why it is foolish if we
think we will go in with a couple hundred americans and keep on one side and the other side people that have been fighting for thousands of years >> what about the new boss? he has been a firery leader, he is at odds with some members of al qaeda, he wants to change his name and they are changing the name of the group from isis, to just islamic state. is he the nknenew head of what going to be a growing state in the middle east that we cannot do anything about? >> yes, and he is considered to be a bin laden by some. very strategic and ruthless. they are going to control oil and resources. they are only going to grow stronger. we have to stop back and think what are the vital interest in
the region. we better get our energy from share else because they will be in the hands of iran or al qaeda and blown up. and the fight is going to come to us so we better get serious. >> that fight is coming to us and that means that 3,000 believers could come back here and attack us at home. >> absolutely. >> thank you, kt mcfarland, for your analysis. more than a billion users log on to facebook. guess what? they are calling uproar over social experiments they may have conducted on you without you knowing. is facebook messing with your
minds? are you happy or sad? we will answer when we come back. we don't typically buy new, but with truecar... the price was so great that we couldn't turn it down. it saved us so much money i was kind of looking around like... this is too good to be true. it was that good. saving you time and money is what we're all about. so when you're ready to buy a car, visit truecar.
that's why i always choose the fastest intern.r slow. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business.
facebook coming under fire after users found out the social media giant may have performed online experiences to mess with user's mind. david lee miller is live. how are they messing with our minds, david lee? >> facebook wanted to find out if information posted on social media can effect your personal emotions. the answers turned out to be a re-sounding yes but facebook learned an important lesson about emotions. people treated like guinea pigs
without knowledge will be outraged. about 700,000 user's news feed had good or bad news and recipients were measured how they responded. when positive expressions were reduced, people produced more negative post. when negatives were redpus deuced the opposite occurred. online emotions effect your behavior and that could effect how you behave when you are not line. feeling depressed? maybe it is because someone posted a message they had a cold. >> any response from facebook? >> researchers posted and it said i can tell you our goal was
never to upset anyone. and he goes on to say my co-auth co-authors and i are sorry for the way the papery described the research. that apology might not be enough to satisfy critics that facebook didn't get proper consent from test subjects. bottom line? you want more information, take a look at your user agreement with facebook, all 19 photogr h photograph -- paragraphs -- >> and i can tell them if you read sad stuff, it will make you sad. we could be minutes away from learning how the supreme court will rule on two very important high stake cases. there is hobby lobby and the battle over the contraception
>> here we go, the supreme court closing with two major cases. you can hear the noise on the steps of the supreme court this morning as the motion is building outside. we will be getting this decision any minute now. welcome to a brand-new hour of "america's newsroom." >> hobby lobby addresses the mandate of birth control in obamacare. the court deciding whether nonunion workers can be forced to pay union dues. shannon green out waiting for the cases. break human standing by in washington. and judge andrew napolitano is
here in new york. we are awaiting these historic decisions any moment now. >> there are large groups on both sides of the decision primarily hear from the hobby lobby case but the fact they have been chanting for the better part of an hour. we will have the opinion that hand and we will know what we are dealing with, for the government or four hobby lobby. it essentially boils down to if a state can force health care workers into a union. it comes at 10:00 straight up, we will see which one comes first. my prediction would we be getting the opinion and we have to wait for hobby lobby. we'll come back to you when we get more.
martha: we should remember the court has a price ever known before when it comes the issue of obamacare. two years ag for the presence health care law faced a major challenge to the individual mandate they came down to whether it was a tax or a fine. it comes down to john rogers who surprised a lot of people when he casts the pivotal vote that preserved the mandate. brit hume is a political analyst. good morning to you. so much to talk about in terms of religious liberties and religious rights and corporations and the chief justice and his role in all of this. let's start with the issue at stake and whether or not companies have a religious right. >> it seems to me, martha, the court has some options here. the people on the side of
religious freedom would like a sweeping ruling that says the corporations and everybody else has a right of religious freedom when yo your you extend it provd birth-control coverage to their employees. member these two cases, there are two companies involved, hobby lobby and one other. they don't reject most forms of birth control. the only couple would be in effect to abortion. they can make a narrow finding, companies whose religious beliefs are unmistakably part of the fabric and the culture of the companies would have a right to opt out of these few provisions. that would be the narrow ruling this court has liked in the past. you can say sorry, you are a profit-making company, the religious sentiments of your
proprietors don't apply here, you have to provide it. that is another option. the third would be a ruling that blows away the whole contraception mandate. i kind of don't expect that. they will either uphold it or give it a narrowly tailored exception to it for companies whose religious beliefs are part of their fabric. martha: a lot of people will be watching chief justice roberts. some discussion he could be the one to write the opinion on it because they distribute the opinion writing throughout the course, it is his term. but not lost on anybody he came under a lot of heat from conservatives on the obamacare mandate decision came down and this could potentially be an opportunity for him to change his thoughts on this whole thing. >> it could.
member what he basically did when he upheld the individual mandate was they blew it away in part, but he upheld it as a tax break. in other words instead of it if you don't comply with the individual mandate, he said you just have to pay more in taxes, you get a tax break if you do comply. the effect of it in many circumstances would be the same thing. but the commerce clause, which has been used by the court to get into areas nobody mention the government would be allowed to get into has not been upheld as a way for this mandate. they have shown some creativity finding ways to thread the needle between one side and the other, they may do that here. martha: they may.
the decision has come through, in the harris case, it is being read at the moment, siu will start to report on that we digested. where are we going to go right now? outside the supreme court, what do we know right now? reporter: first of all w the hey harris decision dealing with people who are home health care workers caring for disabled children or relatives in their home. the state of illinois wanted to force them into a union but the court has said the first amendment prohibits the collection of an agency being from personal assistance in the rehabilitation who do not want to join our support the union. sthe family members fighting to stay home, take the government payment rather than institutionalize their relatives, they want stay-at-home care for them. it would take a bit off the top, a bit of the money away from them, the union doesn't speak for me, i want nothing to do with them.
here in this case on a 5-4 opinion, it prohibits them from paying union these are they want nothing to do with the union. the chief justice said with our opinion, for example here, what he said today was the first of two opinions, so we know now that justice samuel has wrote both opinions, he wrote the hobby lobby opinion. we will have to to get it. that could tell us a lot. whose critical the government arguments here at the court, c can take that one way or another. we do know now for sure that justice has written both opinions including the hobby lobby opinion that we will get any minute. martha: a lot of people thought justice roberts might have a chance to clarify his opinions on obamacare through this decision.
i want to go to judge napolitano i get his reaction first to this union case, what does this mean for them, judge? >> this does not gut some of them as they had hoped a substantial setback for them. a setback for state legislatures the more liberal progressive state legislatures want to force people to join public unions because they can no longer require them to pay dues. they can't require them to pay dues, there is no advantage to forcing them to do so. may i also say i can't help but jumping in on the fact justice alito has written this piece as well as the next one. on this one justice alito has been a leader in restraining public employee unions. without having seen it yet into the studio free to look at, this is probably against public
unions as you can get. secondly the fact the chief justice has announced justice alito has written the hobby lobby decision almost certainly, almost certainly means the government has lost. again, we have to read it and we have to hear the official words coming out of his mouth but it is inconceivable he would have written opinion supporting the government on that. martha: very interesting. to the union case for a moment, it used to be a president in 1977 which basically said even if you opt out of the union and don't want to be part of the political activity, if you benefit from what the union guess for you for employment and compensation package, you have to pay dues. is that a precedent-setting decision in regard to all of those arrangements? >> i would have to read it, but it does appear for the snippet of information we are getting
from our colleagues were quickly reading it in the building you see on the screen as well as the various blogs coming in, it does appear as though the supreme court has not overruled that opinion, but a backstop on it saying we are rethinking the issue, we know longer at only have to contribute politically to the union when you disagree with the politics and we don't even have to contribute to their operating accounts if you don't want to be a member. because first amendment to the united states constitution also guarantees freedom of association and freedom of association, the right to join any group you want also prohibits the government from forcing you to associate with a group you don't want to join and hear that would be the union. martha: we are waiting for a second opinion which we have already learned will be written by justice alito. iit has been written by justice
roberts, would you withhold your judgment about which way this went? surprising people two years ago with this decision, judge. >> personally if i heard chief justice wrote the opinion, my heart would be my stomach. but professionally i would have held that judgment on it because the creative way in which he has seen obamacare two years ago. it appears just as a labor union case was 5-4, the five conservatives, four liberals, it appears at will most likely be, we haven't heard a word out of the justice yet, it appears that will be the same breakdown in the hobby lobby case as well. martha: justice roberts did not want to take this opportunity himself to talk about hobby lobby. >> i think justice roberts was cheese and the christened by the
strongest supporters of the creative way in which he crafted the majority opinion in the obamacare case. i'm not to suggest that motivates people for lifetime appointment but he is a human being and aware of where all this is going. martha: it strikes me this court has an opportunity in this hobby lobby case to make some larger potential comments on how all of this affects whether or not a corporation is a person so to speak. we will touch on that in just a moment. a quick break as a way for the decision to come in, and we will be right back with more. >> he woman who brought that case, pamela harris, watching right now, we will get her reaction live with a potentially groundbreaking decision against public unions.
hello! three grams daily of beta-glucan... a soluable fiber from whole grain oat foods like cheerios can help lower cholesterol. thank you! we fill our freshly baked flatbread, with bold, unflat flavors. like taste inspired by the freshness of the mediterranean. so you always get flavor that's anything but flat. new flatbread sandwiches, try one today.
but they don't yet know we're a family. we're right where you need us. at the next job, next adventure or at the next exit helping you explore super destinations and do everything under the sun. 12 brands. more hotels than anyone else in the world. so wherever you want to be, whatever you want to do, chances are we're already there. save up to 25% and earn bonus points when you book at wyndhamrewards.com.
martha: we have one big decision already out there this morning waiting for the hobby lobby decision coming down. we expect any moment now, but the first one that came through was the public unions cannot make nonmembers pay fees having to do with the home health care worker pamela harris who is the name and who brought this suit. and at her home in illinois with
her reaction to this this morning. good morning. >> good morning. let's go right to pamela. it looks like this is what you wanted. >> exactly what we wanted. justice alito has just finished reading his opinion from the bench, and he says right here they reversed the judgment in the court of appeals. this is what we asked for. >> what does that do to provide 22424 hour care for yourself? >> it says we are not state employees, the person we work for is the person with a disability. i work for josh, i am not a state employee, i cannot be unionized, i do not pay dues. >> this does not got public employee unions. was that ever your goal, you ever consider them an opponent? >> our objective was to review
the threat of unionization and family home and preserve the relationship between a mom or a dad t karen for their disabled child. >> essentially the ruling says, health care providers or home health care providers are an exception and nobody can rule the home i in the illinois, wisconsin border is somehow a union shop. martha: big day for pamela harris, good day for her, thank you very much, mike, for bringing us her reaction to this case. we're keeping one ear on the supreme court waiting for the hobby lobby decision to come forward. there have been tears outside, we can't read all of what is going on, but we do know that chief justice alito has written both opinions this morning, and we're waiting for shannon green to read through this, but we're getting some early indications of how this is gone.
a decision made whether or not employers with religious objections can indeed refuse to pay for certain contraceptive methods. hobby lobby is a for-profit company but they say it is a family company and they could exempt certain forms of contraception's from the mandated health care plan because they went against their religious beliefs. can a corporation, public corporation have a conscience, can't be a public entity to the extent it cannot be asked to sidestep's religious police to provide contraception for people. the argument the other way is they couldn't deny women who work for them on the coverage given under obamacare by other corporations. all of this a hot debate. how narrowly the court views this is the big question, will they be identifying the specific
contraception drugs hobby lobby was against in this opinion, or will they take a broader view of it and say corporations have a right to pick and choose among the aspects of obamacare they feel comfortable providing. now they have been forced to purchase something and hobby lobby said if we are forced to purchase something for employees, we have discretion in terms of how we believe our religious beliefs apply to that. so we are seeing on the wire early indicators, but we are seeing and waiting until we have the absolute backing of our own reporters on the ground and they have read enough of this decision to say which way it has gone. eric: you hear the repeated cheers and make no imagine how the decision may have gone doing with companies that can opt out of obamacare and that mandate.
hobby lobby only objected to four of those issues very narrowly. the impact and effect on obamacare will be watche watch s the country. how it will affect the executive branch going forward at the decision last week. on the overreach that was decided in some of these mandates he has done. martha: hobby lobby has won this case. 5-4 decision, so it was a close one. we had one of the lead attorneys in this case for the second fund hopeful it wil would be a unanis decision. that is not the case, the decision will be read by justice alito. this is the first time a high court has ruled a profit-seeking business can have a religious
viewpoint under federal law. religious institutions obviously contested this initially and the administration said basically we will find a loophole for you. we don't expect the catholic church to provide contraceptives. push it back for themselves the purpose of this. they're also saying that can apply to private company in this case hobby lobby and the furniture company in pennsylvania as well. let's bring brit hume in with your reaction to this. >> this decision applies to closely held corporations the company like hobby lobby, which is family owned. that narrows the scope of the decision here. if general motors so we announced by virtue of some vote of the board decided it had a
religious objection, that would not apply here. it is 5-4, so to some extent this is obviously a win for hobby lobby and other closely held companies whose owners have strong religious convictions that would apply, since they doesn't to all companies but does not cross out the concept should mandate from what we can tell so far. shannon will have a full read on this with little bit more time to read it. i am just give you a preview of what i think we're going to hear. martha: public companies would not be able to argue this. family owned companies will have a religious perspective. people have the opportunity to
work for the company or not work for the company based in what kind of coverage they want to get. let's go to judge andrew napolitano and what is your reaction to this, judge? >> this is narrowly tailored and appropriate decision by the spring court respecting the religious rights of the owners of these corporations as he so nicely pointed out not general motors, this is a closely held corporation not necessarily a family. in one person called a proprietor. this really court says where you are not a public corporation come you do not have the public buying and selling your shares of stock, a small group of incorporators and shareholders in all of whom know each other and have the same interest you don't have to follow this mandate. martha: let's go to shannon from the steps of the supreme court. what can you tell us which mark reporter: 5-4 opinion is a win for hobby lobby.
it doesn't specifically say the contraceptive mandate as applied to closely held corporations is a decision because they are familfamily-owned closely held corporations and this is for them. the slate you would expect with kennedy going to a more conservative wing holding the hss mandate is unlawful. the owners of companies fo forft all of their options when they are for profit. iis under the freedom act which prohibits government from taking any action that burdens the exercise of religion unless it is the least restrictive thing. it is a big one, but so far what we see is basically from justice alito this ictive means. women's have other ways to get this birth control, it is not that they are banned from getting it but there has to be a
workaround or hobby lobby does not have to underwrite or provide cost free access to the contraceptive methods covered by the hss mandate. they say it triggers abortion. i don't see it as birth control, the testing was them. talking about the morning-after pill, once there is a fertilized egg can end a pregnancy. he goes with the majority but he wrote his own opinion. he is obviously the key swing vote here. one problem he has was the fact these requirements come not from an elected body, but from an unelected bureaucracy, he found it very troubling at least in the arguments that the democrats can set the policy, now it is secretary orwell. somebody not elected or part of the three branches outlined in the constitution handing out something so sweeping come you
can hear the protesters here. some happy faces, some sad faces, depending on where you were on this issue but basically what it boils down to these closely held negotiations, the government cannot force them to comply with this mandate. if they did so, and would violate the law. they did not consider the first amendment analysis. the owners of these companies are protected, authored with a discussion of women having equal opportunity in the workplace and i am reading the opening number of her dissent she is going to see this gender equality issue, they normally sighted together on that side of the bench are together today. martha: thank you very much. first of all anthony kennedy understanding of the mandate of this law, the fact it is
interesting point he makes they are not an elected entity and should not have the rights to impose this upon the closely held corporations. >> he agrees with the results of the majority but has some additional things he wants to put in there. but i understand from one of the blogs that are kind enough to send it to us, justice kennedy said if the department of hhs was so determined to have these contraceptive services paid for, why don't they pay for it themselves? there's nothing in the majority opinion which would prevent the government from paying for it, this is not a case for the constitutionality of contraception, this is a case of individual conscience so if the government wants women employed with closely held family-owned
corporations not publicly traded and those people don't want to provided, the government can provide it themselves. that is the essence as i understand it. >> in a few minutes we will continue more analysis from the fox news channel for decision a set back from the public unions and the right to not pay dues, the hobby lobby case protecting and defending employers at hobby lobby. we will have reaction from their lawyers as well as karl rove. your watch the fox news channel, more in a moment. i'm j-a-n-e and i have copd.
i'm d-a-v-e and i have copd. i'm k-a-t-e and i have copd, but i don't want my breathing problems to get in the way my volunteering. that's why i asked my doctor about b-r-e-o. once-daily breo ellipta helps increase airflow from the lungs for a full 24 hours. and breo helps reduce symptom flare-ups that last several days and require oral steroids, antibiotics, or hospital stay. breo is not for asthma. breo contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. it is not known if this risk is increased in copd. breo won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden copd symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. breo may increase your risk of pneumonia, thrush, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking breo. ask your doctor about b-r-e-o for copd.
speaking now is the is attorney for the other company involved in the lawsuit. >> we thank all of those who have stood with the hine and green family in this battle for religious liberty. we just celebrate today this win were the right that our founders fought and died for. thank you. [ applause ] >> i am the president and ceo of americans united for life. we would like to start by saying thank you to the green and hahn families for leading the charge to defend our right to religious freedom and freedom of
conscious. on this july 4th, we will be celebrating a continuation of freedom of conscious in this country. the supreme court has decisively said that when you go into the business in this country, you do not give up your american right to freedom of conscious. this is a tremendous win today for all of us and americans of any opinion that their right to follow their own beliefs and their core american values will be upheld in this country. we thank these families for standing for freedom of conscious. [ applause ] >> good morning. i am kathy roots and i am a lawyer with the family research counsel. this is a great day for religious freedom. this is one of the most significant religious freedom victories from the court in a
decade. what the court said was the obama administration overreached again. this is a heavy hand of government and they went too far. it is good day for freedom and freedom of conscious. now, i want to say something about women because the political left likes to use the hhs mandate as a cynical war of words. they like to say if you are for the mandate you are for women, if you are against the mandate you are against women. i am hear to tell you interesting facts about women and the mandate. today is a day for women to celebrate. [ applause ] >> beside the chief rhetoric, who is taking the time and trouble and the money to go to court to file lawsuits to stop the mandate? women!
[ applause ] >> women who run non-profits like little sisters of the poor and other women and also business women who run family businesses and today is a great day for business women who run family businesses. a third of the plaintiffs in this case are women in business. thank you, court, for standing up for the right of women business owners. >> [ applause ]. >> and what about the women on the bench? what do they think about the mandate? if you look you will find the vast majority of women judges who looked at the mandate are against it. they ruled against it time and time again. far outpacing women on the bench who rule for it. so what do women judges in america think about the mandate? they are against it. and finally, when you look at a public opinion, don't watch the news. look at the real public opinion.
what does the average american think about this mandate? they don't like it. we will get back to that. a lot of excitement for those what wanted hobby lobby to be justice today and they were 5-4. let's bring in karl rove and get a sense of the political impact. good morning. >> this is a great ruling in parts of the country where the catholic church and religion is strong this will be well received and have a positive impact on candidates and office holders who stuck with this movement. we are talking about the right of a family held company to conduct business with its deeply
religious believes. they accepted the contraception that was included but they objected to three drugs and one device that were designed to terminate a pregnancy. these were against the families' believes and the question was should they be forced to violate and the good news is the court ruled they had no such right and that is keeping with a great tradition of allowing people to express their religious beliefs in their daily lives. we don't require certain people to say the pledge of allegiance or serve in combat in anything other than a caregiving role because it is against their beliefs to engage in acts of
violence. there a lot of voters around the country. >> there is a lot of discussion on the war on women and the last speaker outside was trying to rebut the idea that this is against women and this is limiting the freedom of women. and one of the justice, which we are just getting some of the comments in, made it clear she feels this is a huge loss for and an injustice for equality for women. so that is what we will hear from the democrats. >> public opinion does matter. lots of public survey showed that a number of women are pro-life in their outlook and when asked specific questions like should someone be forced to pay for an abortion causing drug they believe they should not be forced. so i think democrats will use the war on women theme and the
degree it can be rebuted by women candidates better. but at the end of the day, it will not sell. the country is becoming more pro-life particularly if you take the judgemental words and put the focus on should someone be forced to violate moral beliefs by paying for something they cause an abortion. and most of america thinks no. we will have more on this and what the supports say. and a lawyer for hobby lobby weighs in on the decision. we are reporting live. we are reporting live. p. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month. low dues... great terms... let's close.
we are back with breaking news and a victorious day for hobby lobby. i am joined by the council for the becket fund for religious liberty oo who worked on this case. adele, congrats. what is your reaction? >> today is a great day for religious libbertliberty. the court issued a careful ruling and refutes the idea that americans lose their religious freedom when they go out and open a business.
>> in terms of 5-4 decision, one of your attorneys was hopefully it would be unanimous so any disappoint it was close? >> we are thilled with the vote and they recognized they have rights. there is always going to be disagreement about the scope of rights. religious freedom isn't a trump card. it is a balanced right. the court carefully balanced the important constitutional rights that the green's asserted against the contraception mandate which has more holes than swiss cheese. >> do you think there is a larger precedent set here? it took away the four method of contraception that hobby lobby felt were not preventive and they were abortion-inducing drugs in this opinion.
is there for this to be a larger red decision in your mind? >> i hope the administration hears the message from the supreme court and calls off the war on the little sisters of the poor and mother angelica. today at midnight, irs fines are coming down on the catholic administration and the administration has continued to prosecute the war on nuns and other religious non-profits. i hope the administration will read this decision and call off its war on the nuns. if the government wants to give con truceptives out there are many other ways without forcing people of faith to carry their water. we hope it will have those implicatio implications. let's bring in dr. robert jeffers who is pastor of the first baptist church in dallas
and a commentator. your reaction to the decision that is being called the most significant religious freedom hearing in a decade? >> the supreme court stopped the greatest attempt of religious assault in history. i want the viewers to understand what the obama administration was arguing. they were saying it is okay to be pro-religious on the weekend but when you go to work you have to give up the beliefs and become pro-abortion. there is no such thing has a separation of faith from the rest of your life in the constitution. today, i believe, was a great victory but i don't think it will be short lived. it was a 5-4 decision and i think people of faith are going to increasingly come into contact with governmental mandates that violate the faith.
>> it is very narrow in terms of effecting closely held corporations. it doesn't affect the seemingly vast corporations in the country. are you disappointed that in your view it may not go far enough and it will be short lived? >> well, i think the high court could have a made a broader decision. in 2010, they recognized that corporations have first amendment rights, the right of free speech and just a few words later it talks about the free exercise of religion. they are not limited to individuals. they apply to anyone and everyone. so it could have been broader but we will take a win today and we are hap eeabout it. >> the justice is concerned about keeping the court out of the merits of different
religious complaints. and if you have two owners of a small business and they both disagree how do you weigh in on that? >> that is a careful needle. this view that life is sacred is a part of tens of millions of religious people and this country was founded on judeo christian principals so i think the court is very sound in saying that we had the right to uphold those beliefs. >> thank you, dr. jeffers, a historic day at the supreme court and for our country. we are still reading through the justice's opinions and we will hear from jay seck and judge nap after this.
>> justice have adjourned for this entire term and left us with two very big decisions. the chief counsel for the american center of law and justice and judge napolitano is here. i only have a little time. i want to get right to it. jay, tell me what you think of the decision and also the fact that it has been put back in the white house's lap in terms of the responsibility to pay for these four other drugs? >> well, i think number one, no one should be saying it was a narrow decision. the startling maybe the overstatement but the court applied the religious
resstration act. and number two, there remember exemptions given to labor unions and others so to deny to companies that have convictions was not property -- proper -- we are thrilled with this decision. i think it is huge and i don't think anybody should sell it short because it didn't reach the first amendment issues. the court knows to the statute first. >> good point about the other exemptions and you feel they deserve it. what about the significance of adjusts robert and his role or lack of? >> the chief didn't write
anything on the labor case in illino illinois or this one. but there he is on the screen. the chief justice of the united states supreme court wrote the majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of obamacare. for him to join the majority, striking down the con truceptive mandate for corporations is very telling. it is a little mysterious no explanation but he is saying when he signed off on this, he didn't sign off on this part. >> he got a lot of heat from conservatives on that. your thoughts on justice roberts saying nothing? >> well, he said something, he voted with the majority. the fact there is no separate opinion i don't find
significant. but the majority of the supreme court said the obama administration was wrong in compelling people to check their convictions at the dor. it is a win. i have had cases where once the chief justice asked how i want to case to go and i lost below and i said i would like it to say reverse. justice robert's vote was one of the votes that got us the win. two striking decisions. one on religious freedom and the other on not to pay union dues. we will have more analysis and insight on what is happening in that building before the justice have adjourned for the first monday in october. monday in october.
where its biggest refinery has been attacked. more chaos over there means higher prices here but we can take control with renewable fuels like ethanol. it means more jobs and more security... less pollution and less pain at the pump. because it's time to stop letting chaos decide our... energy future. tell congress and the epa to stand up to big oil. don't gut the renewable fuel standard. she loves to shop online with her debit card. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts, and stole her hard-earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you
learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft. and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified before it was too late. lifelock's credit notification service is on the job 24/7. as soon as they detect a threat to your identity within their network, they will alert you, protecting you before the damage is done. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. my years as a prosecutor taught me that we all need to protect ourselves from crime. in today's world, that includes identity theft. it's a serious problem. we all have to protect ourselves. [ male announcer ] while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee.
that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. that's right. 60 days risk free. use promo code notme. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. don't wait until you become the next victim. ♪ ♪ >> what a morning. >> busy morning. lots to think about as we head through the afternoon today in terms of this hobby lobby decision, a huge decision as well as we still go through all the justices opinions here.
i will see you at 2:00 this afternoon. we'll have more coming up. eric, thank you for being here. >> see you tomorrow morning at 9:00. we'll covering and have full analysis of these historic decision throughout the day on the fox news channel. "happening now" starts right now. jenna: let's pick up right where we left off. fox news alert on two major rulings from the supreme court. big monday. hope you're having a good one. i'm jenna lee. jon: what a way to begin the week. i'm jon scott. the big ruling centers on the obamacare birth control mandate. the supreme court rules 5-4 in favor of the hobby lobby company which objected on religious ground to paying for certain kinds of contraceptions to their employees. if the obama administration wants to provide birth control under company as health insurance plans must find a way to pay for them. we have tom goldstein, founder of scotusblog. he is a frequent guest of the fox news channel.